Sure you do. So you might enjoy this webcast series from Scientific American.
One of the things they mention is the recent “peer-reviewed” “scientific” “journal” from Answers in Genesis (sharply slammed by Larry Moran), and they criticize Nature‘s coverage, which urges scientists to avoid taking “too strong a stance against the journal” because it would “fuel creationist’s claim of scientific bias against religion.”
This is what always happens when you go to appeasers for quotes: you get urged to be a coward in dealing with the opposition.
So if they were reviewing an article in support of a flat Earth around which the Universe revolves as based upon the word of the bible, would they suggest going easy on the criticism so as to not appear to be anti-bible?
But science is biased against religion.
Appeasement of intolerance and bigotry is plainly insane. Now it’s creationary biology, tomorrow will be flood geology, the other day will be the four-elemented chemistry or perhaps the four-humoured physiology. The problem of all that theories is that are only defended by being blind to evidence. And being blind to evidence is the easy pathway to epistemological nihilism.
Appeasement of intolerance and bigotry is plainly insane. Now it’s creationary biology, tomorrow will be flood geology, the other day will be the four-elemented chemistry or perhaps the four-humoured physiology. The problem of all that theories is that are only defended by being blind to evidence. And being blind to evidence is the easy pathway to epistemological nihilism.
What’s better:
Fueling creationist’s claim of scientific bias against religion? Appearing to treat creationism as valid science?
Which will cause more harm to the public? At least with the former everybody is made aware that science considers creationism to be unfounded crap.
Milo Johnson raises an interesting point. Is there a peer-reviewed Flat Earth Research Journal? (Of course, the “peers” would have to be crazy-ass loons, but I bet it would be fun to read!)
I don’t think science is against religion, I think the fundies put religion on the traks in front of science so they can look more like the victim and less like the pathetic wackos they are. Lot’s of people can (and do) belive in god and not be at odds with what we know, they are deluding themselves but who cares no skin off my hide. I agree with PZ though from his earlier post, if they lie about science or about religion we should nail them to the wall.
Appeasement never works … just kill’em.
(Note for the humour impaired: I’m kidding!)
If the scientific method doesn’t confirm someones religious beliefs (or even, goes against them), how is that relevant to scientists?
I always figured thats what theology departments are there for. They can go as easy as they please.
What can we say, reality is biased against religion.
That’s only partly true Rey.
Reality (capital ‘R’) is biased against religion, and science is merely the study of Reality.
urges scientists to avoid taking “too strong a stance against the journal” because it would “fuel creationist’s claim of scientific bias against religion.”
Right. And toilet paper has too strong a bias against fecal matter.
If religion is intent on fostering ignorance, then religion has put itself in the crosshairs. The whole fucking reason we are where we are is because certain well-funded assholes have decided to take advantage of a cultural quirk whereby stupidity is privileged, just so long as it is called “faith.” You can lie or just plain waste other people’s time, just so long as you call your crap “faith.” It’s the first refuge of a scoundrel.
And, in this cultural quirk, bullshit is permitted just so long as it is delivered by (a) white (b) men, in (c) business attire, (d) as boringly as possible.
They are counting on being humored. They are destroyed when they are mocked. Only when they’ve been hounded from the public forum in shame, when anyone is terrified of being associated with them, will they cease to waste our time and cease to reproduce their kind, to reproduce ignorance.
.
“Reality (capital ‘R’) is biased against religion, and science is merely the study of Reality. ”
Dan, that is one brilliant way of putting it. Now, all we need to do is make the loonies understand it…
Somewhere along the way religion was installed as the arbiter of physical laws and reality, and I missed it. I still remember back when religion was a moral guide to life with people – “do not kill,” “honor your parents” and other old fashioned stuff. These days, it’s all reversed, and science now tells us how people interact – right or wrong, it is what it is. Religion on the other hand now tells us belief in religion is all-important and life with people involves morality only if those people believe in religion.
this is not about religions, or doctrines or ideologies. Nor true nor false.
This is about pandemic of contagious psychosis. It is only by chance the content of their delusions is religious. they could be equally raving about car tires or grammar, or what ever.
And apostrophe errors, apparently. If Nature is to be believed, there is only one creationist making the claim of scientific bias against religion. One person’s claim shouldn’t be much to worry about, should it?
appeasement should be one tool in everybody’s toolbox–in some situations, it’s the best one to use.
but the rightwing in america–and especially the religious right wing–is unappeasable.
they’re going to say that science is biased, whether we are polite or not.
they’re going to say that liberals are soft on terror, whether we vote for bush’s war or not.
they’re going to say that democrats stabbed soldiers in the back, whether we call for withdrawals or not.
they’re going to say that democrats are fiscally irresponsible, even when we balance the budget and they squander the surplus.
they’re going to keep saying this stuff, because lying and bullying is all they know, and the more we cringe and appease, the more they’ll bully.
we’ve tried being nice and polite and reasonable for far too long.
So criticism of non-scientific idiocy equals criticism of religion? Wow. I mean, wow.
Pah! You’re just afraid of the scrutiny of the Almighty’s Science Commandos.
High-quality papers for Answers Research Journal, sponsored by Answers in Genesis, are now invited for submission. Interested authors should download and read the Instructions to Authors Manual PDF file for all details of requirements, procedures, paper mechanics, referencing style, and the technical review process for submitted papers.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf if you dare…
I’m sure the “High-quality” requirement is strictly a technicality.
They already think there is a vast scientific conspiracy against their far-right fringe, non-peer-reviewed bullshit. It’s important to point out, very calmly, that they’re out of the scientific mainstream, and if they had valid life science publications they’d be gracing the cover of Nature or at least be in the NLM database. They think….
Oh wait…
Gotta go…I’ll miss my meeting with the Freemasons and the Bilderberg Group.
Science isn’t biased against anything. Individual scientists might be biased or crooked. It’s happened before and it will happen again. Hence the need for repeatability and actual peer review as opposed to “peer review”.
Real science is still about the same thing it was always about, understanding how the universe works through rational, repeatable, logical testing, investigation and . It is neither the fault of science nor scientists themselves that creationists promote an agenda of falsehood and misrepresentation in order to ensnare the undereducated and intellectually lazy into their web so they can pick their pockets. When that fails they will no doubt turn to violence and persecution as they have done in the past.
The creationists decided that the only way they could fight this supposed usurpation of their power is to continue to deceive their flock with bigger and bigger lies and to dress them up in colorful language so that they appear scientific when they’re just more religious nonsense.
In short, any perception of bias against religion by science is projection plain and simple.
These days, it’s all reversed, and science now tells us how people interact – right or wrong,
Posted by: Hopelessly old-school | February 5, 2008 2:48 PM
– – – – –
Wow… what a load of claptrap.
Exactly what ‘science’ textbook did you pull that from? There are no science books that tell you how you SHOULD react. There are tons of books that people have written about their observations about how people DO react. There is a distinct difference between discussing the symptoms of schizotypal disorder and telling people “You must raise your pinky when you drink from you glass.”
Science is about observation and prediction. Not commands. If you want to be told how to behave then mosey your butt down to the local church. But reality doesn’t end at the big arched doors and it doesn’t give a damn whether you stand, sit, kneel or pray.
So I wonder, if I were to start a “peer reviewed”, scholarly Theology journal and invite articles from PZ and various other non-theistic types, what do you think they would have to say about that?
No, it’s a real requirement. It’s not considered ‘High-Quality’ unless it’s at least typed up in Courier New font size 14 with triple spacing.
Written in crayon? Nope.
Drool-stains? Sorry.
Fecal drawings are right out.
It’s going to take generations to undo the damage these theocrats are doing to science. By simply redefining scientific terms to fit the meanings they want and spreading the misinformation far and wide, they guarantee that the uninformed will take them at their word. Now they’re working on the term “peer review” so it’s perceived as “read by people who already agree with you.” People who know what it is will feel the outrage as more and more people who don’t come to think that scientists, too, get to hand-pick their “peers”.
Answers in Genesis sounds like it should be hilarious. Should be a great source of Bad Examples, too.
Hatred, insults, and threats, they’ll just eat up like so much candy. As they have no sense of humor, they can’t defend against it.
“Never reach for the sword when the custard pie will do.”
Wow, maybe it is a decent requirement then. Eliminating those with drool stains might just screen out most of the YECs.
I’m right there with you, Alison. These people are doing an incredible amount of damage to education in this country (both in the school system and in society in general), and working their hardest to export this kind of nonsense to other parts of the world. Even if we put a crashing stop to it all now, it will still take years to undo the harm they’ve already caused.
I have two kids who will start school in the next few years. I don’t know what kind of education they’re likely to get with this kind of anti-reality mentality infecting the system, and what kind of lives they’ll have as a result of the anti-reality attitude our society as a whole has taken on.
“Science isn’t biased against anything. Individual scientists might be biased or crooked. It’s happened before and it will happen again. Hence the need for repeatability and actual peer review as opposed to “peer review”.”
I really hope you do not actually mean what you said there. Of course science is biased, it must be biased else it would not work. It is biased in favour of good science over bad science. It is biased against those who think “goddidit” explains anything, and is biased in favour of those who develop a hypothesis that is well supported by the evidence. If science were not biased how would it be possible to decided between competing theories ? Creationism/ID then really would be just as valid as evolution.
I suspect however that you do not actually think science should not be biased, just that science should only have biases that can be justified. Science rejecting supernatural explanations is one such justifiable bias. If “goddidit” was allowed as a legitimate explanation then nothing could be explained.
Come on guys and gals, when has the fight for reality and science ever been different from now?
10 years ago?
100 years ago?
1000 years ago?
This is like talking about the ‘ole time religion, it’s a time that never really happened. Science and religion have constantly been at odds from the earliest recorded times, swinging from from enlightenment to the base stupidities of faith. Many of you have pointed out in other threads that the same discussions/arguements about evolution are still occuring on issues that had seemingly been totally resolved 150 years ago. Some are still debating about a flat or hollow earth. So the world turns.
However I’m sure you all agree continued intellectual discourse will keep the fires of reason alight, especially for us unwashed working folks who want the ability to discuss real cutting edge issues with real scientists, PZ as an example. For me personally, the ability to immediately aquire and read any subject of interest, and have immediate written information to counter silly points of view has been world changing.
Leon, it will be even more so for your children, and their children, if they choose to use it. It’s a wonderful time to be alive!
Thanks, RAM. I hope to teach them the wonders of the universe, such that I’m able, teach them to think critically and examine dubious claims, and encourage them to become educated laypersons like their Old Man.
Now look at that. I forgot to close the blockquote. And I’m not even tired yet…
or actually…
<snore>
Now look at that. I forgot to close the blockquote. And I’m not even tired yet…
or actually…
<snore>
“TORTE STATT WORTE”
And tårta på tårta!
Cool. I’ve been listening to Science Talk and 60-Second Science for quite a while, but I never knew this webcast even existed.
@ Dídac: Excuse me, there are five elements: Water, Wood, Fire, Earth, and Metal. And a spherical planet is bad Feng Shui.
@ David M: “Torte statt Worte” FTW! I love it!
@ windy: “tårta på tårta”?
Hmmmmmm……. I wonder what would happen if real scientists were to launch a pre-emptive strike and flood the AIG journal with real submissions?
wotthe: it’s a Swedish saying that seemed to complement David’s German one. For some strange reason, Swedes consider “cake on cake” something negative, what could be more beautiful than that?
“From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed. This would insure continuity and stability for the times to come.”
Dinosaurs would disagree.